[QUOTE=Cartooniverse]
<snip>He couldnt’ seem to find his way to that set of cites and facts, I and others were perfectly capable of doing so. Hence the Pitting. <snip>
[/QUOTE]
So, you are pitting Bricker because he didn’t Google as well as you did, a failing he admitted. You are an amazing asshole.
[QUOTE=Cartooniverse]
Contrapuntal, your attempt to stir the pot further given my quite serious apology to tomndebb does nothing to contribute to this thread. I’d appreciate it if you didn’t try to tell the world what I am saying. If you feel my post is in need of special attention, and you are capable of proving somehow that my post was not what it appeared to be ( an apology ) well, that’s what that nifty little exclamation point is for in the right-hand region of your post.
Or, was the purpose of your post to make my say yet again what I said before, just for your perverse gratification? Perhaps that is it. Well, who knows. Since I stand by my previous posts, and you seem hell-bent on calling me an insincere liar, here you go:
tomndebb is completely correct and I would never think to debate any of his statements.
I therefore must apologize for what is apparently a gross misunderstanding on my part.
Sorry there, Bricker ! You could not have been more correct in your statements in the thread linked to in the OP. Additional apologies for using arrest cases for cites that did not fulfill the requirements as put forth in your posts. My bad.
I meant what I wrote. I’m sorry that you see fit to attack an apology, but there’s nothing I can do about that other than to have repeated my apology.
Which I just did.
Cartooniverse
[/QUOTE]
mea culpa. I said I would be happy to admit I was wrong and I do. I thought I detected irony in your use of absolutes; apparently my eye failed me and I spoke in error. Please accept my sincere apology. It was wrong of me to say what I said.
[QUOTE=Cartooniverse]
Sorry there, Bricker ! You could not have been more correct in your statements in the thread linked to in the OP. Additional apologies for using arrest cases for cites that did not fulfill the requirements as put forth in your posts. My bad.
[/QUOTE]
Whenever you offer a sincere apology in a situation like this, I of course accept it.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Whenever you offer a sincere apology in a situation like this, I of course accept it.
[/QUOTE]
Bricker, will you please just admit that you were wrong? For once in your life, can you acknowledge that you were in error? 
[QUOTE=Cartooniverse]
Did I pit Bricker because the person in the cite was found not guilty?
[/QUOTE]
Matter of fact, you pitted Bricker because he would not admit he was wrong. He did, in fact, as cited, admit twice that he was wrong. You have chosen to deflect the pitting to the fact that he was, as already admitted, wrong. You are, for some reason unknown to me, stating that the fact he was wrong in this instance proves the case your OP attempts to make that Bricker never admits he is wrong.
Would you care to state, in plain English, that the premise of your OP (that Bricker never admits he is wrong), is, at least in this particular instance, if not in general, is incorrect, and that your OP was misguided?
(And I’d like to add that the title of SDSAB below a member’s name does not confer some sort of magic immunity from logical attack. Bricker gets attacked plenty; I expect that will continue, and I expect I’ll participate as appropriate. This attack, though, is nonsense.)
So what does SDSAB stand for?
No really. I’m not being sarcastic. I really don’t know.
I can guess the first two letters of course…
[QUOTE=Frank]
Would you care to state, in plain English, that the premise of your OP (that Bricker never admits he is wrong), is, at least in this particular instance, if not in general, is incorrect, and that your OP was misguided?
[/QUOTE]
The OP was overstated; to the contrary, **Bricker ** is one of the few posters to apologize frequently and without reservation when he is wrong. Or needs to.
[QUOTE=Evil One]
So what does SDSAB stand for? .
[/QUOTE]
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
[QUOTE=saoirse]
But once again, he was not found not guilty. The judge ruled that the prosecutor had no cause to bring the charge in the first place. That is nothing like being found not guilty.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Cartooniverse]
Oh my word. The definition of Echolalia seems appropriate here.
Fine. No problem. Once again, allow me to re-clarify: The OP does not address whether or not the person in the cite was found guilty, or whether or not the person in the cite was given a darned Peabody Award for killing someone while using a cellular phone behind the wheel. **Yes, i agree. There is nothing like being found not guilty. **
[/QUOTE]
I understand now: you’re retarded. You have my pity.
Yeah, that’s one of the ways you can tell he’s a lawyer, and possibly a former judicial clerk. Most judge’s clerks are taught never to say “there is no cite” or “no law exists on this point.” In the vast majority of written opinions, the court will say “Party X provided no authority for [whatever position]” or “we are unable to find any authority to support [whatever position].” This is because you never know when someone will pull out an 1742 Admiralty decision from South Assboink that arguably, possibly, if you squint, might be relevant. So yes, this is an out, and it’s one BRICKER uses intentionally (and good for him).
BRICKER –
Very admirable.
If only this were a court of law, and not the court of public opinion here, if only. Then that “debate” approach would be mere technical proficiency in action, not crass weaseling.
However, to normal people in normal contexts, the statement “I know of no instance where …” is virtually indistinguishable from “You’re making that shit up”. Bricker might indeed not be any more aware of that than you seem to be, of course - in fact, I’m almost sure of it.
OTOH, this is the Straight Dope® and I have not seen two normal posters, here, in the last nine years, so I’m not sure what you hoped to express in that post.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
OTOH, this is the Straight Dope® and I have not seen two normal posters, here, in the last nine years, so I’m not sure what you hoped to express in that post.
[/QUOTE]
It’s all in the context, baby. 
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
The OP was overstated; to the contrary, **Bricker ** is one of the few posters to apologize frequently and without reservation when he is wrong. Or needs to.
[/QUOTE]
I’m glad somebody understood that sentence, because on rereading it yesterday morning, I was not sure I did.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
The OP was overstated; to the contrary, **Bricker ** is one of the few posters to apologize frequently and without reservation when he is wrong. Or needs to.
[/QUOTE]
I’m glad somebody understood that sentence, because on rereading it yesterday morning, I was not sure I did.